Former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S Oka said judges are guided only by the Constitution and law, rejecting any ‘divine’ or external influence in delivering verdicts. He stressed that every judicial decision must strictly stand the test of constitutional principles and legal reasoning.
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S Oka, during a recent Idea Exchange session, spoke openly and clearly on several important issues affecting the judiciary, the legal profession and constitutional governance in India.
In a frank and wide-ranging discussion, Justice Oka firmly rejected the idea that judges are guided by anything other than the Constitution and the law, stating that judicial decision-making cannot be influenced by personal beliefs, external pressure or so-called “divine” forces.
He made it clear that judges function strictly within the boundaries laid down by the Constitution and legal principles. Emphasising the oath taken by every judge, Justice Oka said,
“When judges have to decide, that is our only guide. Sometimes we do take time to decide. The issues are so complex that we have to do a lot of thinking, a lot of research. Sometimes the formulation of judgment takes time. There are cases where we prepare 15-16 or more drafts of the judgment before we finalise.”
Justice Oka further underlined that the Constitution, the law, legal concepts and judicial experience are the only sources of guidance for judges while writing judgments. He categorically ruled out any other influence, stating,
“I don’t think there can be any other source.”
Speaking on the often-debated issue of balancing development with environmental protection, Justice Oka offered a straightforward legal perspective. He said that the answer already exists in law and the Constitution.
According to him,
“There are laws related to the environment. There is a fundamental right to live in a pollution-free atmosphere. The law is very clear that you cannot do anything in violation of law regarding the environment, because it has a source in the constitution itself.”
Referring to Article 48A of the Constitution, which places a duty on the State to protect the environment, he highlighted that environmental protection is not optional but a constitutional obligation. He strongly criticised attempts to justify illegal actions in the name of development, asserting,
“When there is an action by the executive or government, it has to stand the test of law, whether it is the constitution or the environmental law or any other law. You can’t say that just because you want to do so-called development, we will bypass or breach the law. You can’t say that. It’s as simple as that. There can’t be any conflict. Every action of every authority has to be in terms of law.”
On the issue of gender-insensitive language in judicial orders, Justice Oka acknowledged that some judgments, especially in sensitive cases like those under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, have used inappropriate language.
He explained that such issues often stem from social conditioning and lack of sensitivity training. He said,
“It all depends on the upbringing of judges and therefore now during last about 15-20 years, the rigorous training which goes for civil judges and district judges, there are state judicial academies, there are national judicial academy and during last 4-5 years even national judicial academy is arranging training courses for the newly appointed high court judges.”
He stressed the importance of careful language in judgments and admitted that some judgments should not have been written the way they were.
He observed,
“If you see the ultimate finding, it is in terms of law. But that’s a concern and therefore you must know about three years back, the Supreme Court has published a booklet on what the ideal language. So there’s work happening in judicial academies because that’s a need of the hour.”
Justice Oka also spoke in detail about gender representation in the judiciary and noted a significant positive change at the lower levels of the judicial system. He said that in most states, over the last five to six years, more than half of the newly appointed civil judges are women.
According to him,
“That’s a big change that has happened during the last 10 years.”
Referring to recruitment rules and reservation policies, he pointed out that even in states without formal reservation, representation from reserved categories was improving. Recalling the situation in Maharashtra, he said,
“But at that time there were figures which were available, even without reservation, also there were representations, say of 37%, 38% to the reserved category.”
Justice Oka expressed confidence that the increasing number of women judges at the trial court level will naturally lead to higher representation in senior courts over time.
He said,
“I think things are changing very fast and if you have this scenario that more than 50% of our trial court judges or district judges are women, proportionately their percentage will go up.”
Sharing personal observations, he spoke about the growing number of women in legal education and competitions, highlighting a shift in the legal profession.
He remarked,
“Now my experience has been in moot court competitions, except one which I attended recently, where the winners are always girls. So now girls are occupying a field in the entire system, so it’s a matter of time that things will change.”
Addressing the serious issue of prolonged incarceration without bail, Justice Oka referred to cases where accused persons remain in jail for years due to delays in trial, even when they are not at fault.
He pointed out that such situations violate the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. He explained,
“Some cases there are 200-300 witnesses, they stay by some court. So if for no fault of the accused, the trial gets prolonged and there is long incarceration. Normally by invoking Article 21, the accused is entitled to bail unless you point out that he has antecedents, that he has passed criminal history of committing serious offences.”
Justice Oka also offered candid advice to young lawyers and members of the Bar regarding judicial ambition. He advised lawyers not to aim for judgeship as a career goal, warning that ambition can sometimes lead to compromise.
He said,
“Your job should be to do your best as a lawyer because you know if you have ambition, then sometimes you tend to compromise.”
Explaining his point with a practical example, he noted that lawyers who aspire to become judges may hesitate to strongly argue against judges. He advised against such self-restraint, emphasising professional integrity.
He said,
“As a lawyer, you should not aspire to become a judge. But if you are successful as a lawyer and someday your senior judge or the high court or chief justice calls you and requests you to take up that assignment, it’s a call of duty.”
Concluding his remarks, Justice Oka clarified that becoming a judge should not be about personal ambition but about service to the institution and the Constitution.
He described judicial appointment as an honour that should be accepted only when it comes naturally, calling it not an aspiration but “accepting that great honour” when it is offered.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Justice Abhay S Oka
